coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Szatymaz. When introducing the application, he was detained at Szeged Prison.
6.  The applicant was arrested on 8 January 2008. From 11 January 2008 on he was detained on remand at Szeged Prison on charges of trafficking in goods subject to excise tax. On 9 October 2009 the Csongrád County Regional Court found him guilty as charged. Pursuant to the final judgment of 9 June 2010 of the Szeged Court of Appeal, he served a prison sentence of three years and six months in a strict regime at Szeged Prison. His pre-trial detention was credited against his imprisonment.
7.  Szeged Prison is comprised of two separate parts: Unit I, a strict- and medium-regime facility for sentenced prisoners, and Unit II, a facility for remand prisoners. The applicant’s pre-trial detention, which is the subject matter of his complaints, took place in various cells of Unit II, and the remainder of his detention, as from 10 June 2010, in Unit I.
8.  The applicant submitted that he had shared cells with an average of 16 sq metres’ ground surface with five to seven persons, not counting furniture, and could stay outside the cell only about an hour daily. He also stated that he could receive visitors for only one hour every month (an exception being his brother, who was granted three extra visits, lasting two hours on each occasion); however, he had not been at all allowed to touch his family members during these visits. Moreover, despite his requests, the prison administration had not provided him with toiletries free of charge, nor had it authorised him to possess, with a view to preparing his defence, a personal computer in his cell, although it would have had no access to internet. Lastly, he submitted that the prison had not provided him with free stationery so that he could post submissions to the authorities in charge of his criminal case pending at that time.
9.  He submitted that his requests and complaints concerning the above matters and also the catering at the prison, to various instances of the penitentiary administration were to no avail. He availed himself of a formal remedy with regard to the refusal by the prison administration to authorise him to possess a personal computer in his cell. Whilst the Government submitted that Szeged Prison had been inspected by the penitentiary prosecutor once every two weeks, the applicant stated that no such visit had taken place in Unit II during his detention.
10.  According to the National Penitentiary Service’s statistics available on its website[1], the average occupancy rate of Hungarian prisons was 118% in 2008, 124% in 2009 and 133% in 2010.
4.  The applicants’ names and dates of birth are listed in the annex to the present judgment. They live in Velikie Luki, Pskov Region.
5.  The applicants are former and current teachers at the boarding school for orphans and children deprived of parental care in Velikiye Luki, Pskov Region («Великолукская средняя школа-интернат для детей-сирот и детей, оставшихся без попечения родителей»). By virtue of a provision in the national law they were entitled to a monthly allowance for purchase of books and magazines (компенсация за книгоиздательскую продукцию и периодические издания) which had not been paid to them for a few years.
6.  The applicants applied to a court seeking recovery of the unpaid allowance.
7.  On 28 March 2003 the Justice of Peace of Court Circuit no. 34 of Velikiye Luki in the Pskov Region granted the applicants’ claim for the unpaid allowance and held that the Education Directorate of the Velikiye Luki Town Council should reimburse them various amounts.
8.  On 3 June 2003 the Velikiye Luki Town Court of the Pskov Region upheld that judgment on appeal.
9.  Following an unspecified period during which the judgment remained unenforced, the applicants allegedly applied to a court for index‑linking of the awards due to the inflation but had their claims rejected. They did not however submit any documents to support this claim, nor did they indicate the date of the judicial decision or the court adopting it.
10.  The Government submitted copies of payroll records according to which the awards had been paid to the applicants in April and May 2004.
11.  On 16 January 2008 the Court received letters from thirty‑six applicants stating that they no longer had interest in pursuing the application due to the timely enforcement of the judgment in their favour. The applicants who sent the letters were nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51 and 53 of the Annex.
12.  In their observations received by the Court on 26 May 2008 the remaining seventeen applicants submitted that the town prosecutor’s office had summoned them for interviews, during which the authorities had apprised them of their right not to incriminate themselves and discussed their application.
13.  The letter by the deputy prosecutor of Velikiye Luki of 28 December 2007 confirmed that in October 2007 the town prosecutor’s office had held interviews with the applicants concerning alleged breaches of their ‘Convention right to timely payment of the allowance for purchase of books and magazines’. The letter mentioned that the interviews had been conducted following an inquiry by the Government’s representative at the Court to the Prosecutor General of Russia.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest.
6.  The applicant intended to organise demonstrations in order to call attention to the situation of those having sustained damage originating in a major bankruptcy case which had attracted considerable media attention in Hungary. On 5 February 2007 he applied to the Budapest Police Department for acquiescence in a demonstration on 10 March 2007 and in another one, of ongoing nature, from 10 March until 31 October 2007, both scheduled in Kossuth Square, in front of Parliament.
7.  On 7 February 2007 the Budapest Police Department refused to deal with either of the applications. It observed that on 23 October 2006 the area in question had been declared by the Police Department itself a “security operational zone” (biztonsági műveleti terület) in view of the tumultuous events in Budapest in September 2006. Consequently, the measure – which was, after a prolongation, in place for an indefinite period of time – remained as such outside the Police Department’s competence as regards the prohibition of, or acquiescence in, a demonstration.
8.  On 5 March 2007 the National Police Commander upheld this decision.
9.  On 14 January 2008 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for judicial review, endorsing in essence the police authorities’ reasoning. This decision was served on 26 January 2008.
10.  In another case concerning the same area, on 29 January 2007 a Mr K. challenged the police’s very decision to declare Kossuth Square a “security operational zone”. On 14 March 2007 the Budapest Police Commander rejected his complaint, but this decision was quashed by the National Commander on 16 April 2007. In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 22 June 2007 the Budapest Commander again rejected the complaint. On 19 July 2007 the National Commander upheld this decision. Mr K. challenged this ruling in court.
11.  Mr K.’s action was dismissed by the Budapest Regional Court. However, on appeal the Supreme Court quashed this decision, together with the one of 19 July 2007.
12.  In the resumed second-instance administrative proceedings, on 23 December 2009 the National Commander again upheld the Budapest Commander’s decision. Mr K. requested judicial review.
13.  On 11 November 2010 the Regional Court quashed, in judgment no. 27.K.31.354/2010/9., both the first- and the second-instance administrative decisions and remitted the case to the Budapest Commander. The court pointed out that the impugned decisions did not contain any concrete elements establishing the necessity and proportionality of maintaining the “security operational zone” after the prolongation of 22 November 2006. Nor did they address the plaintiff’s suggestion that the mere fencing-off of Parliament’s immediate vicinity – rather than the global ban on Kossuth Square – would have been sufficient in the circumstances.
14.  In the resumed first-instance administrative proceedings, on 4 April 2011 the Budapest Commander partly sustained Mr K.’s complaint, noting that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proportionality of the impugned measure had successfully been challenged.
4.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Mizhgiriya.
5.  On 28 April 2001 the prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant, a doctor, for negligence. On 28 December 2001 the investigations were completed and on 4 February 2002 the case was referred to the Mizhgirya Court for trial.
6.  Following several reconsiderations of the case, on 13 July 2010 the court acquitted the applicant. It also rejected the victim’s civil claim against the applicant.
7.  On 24 November 2010 the Zakarpattya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s acquittal, while it ordered reconsideration of the civil claim by the first-instance court.
8.  The prosecutors lodged an appeal in cassation which is currently pending before the Higher Specialized Court.
9.  Between 14 April and 15 May 2005 the applicant was detained pursuant to a court’s order. Apart from that period, the applicant’s liberty during the proceedings was restricted by an undertaking not to abscond.
10.  So far, there were ninety-one hearings scheduled, out of which six were adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to appear. Thirty-two hearings did not take place as other parties to the proceedings or witnesses were absent. The judge’s absence resulted in the adjournments of further ten hearings. One hearing was adjourned due to technical reasons. On thirteen occasions the courts had to order the police to ensure the witnesses’ attendance.
11.  On 24 February 2006 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Mizhgiriya Court against his employer challenging his transferral to another post. On 23 March 2006 the court rejected his claims.
12.  On 19 July 2006 the Zakarpatsky Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 18 September 2006 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation. According to the applicant, that decision was sent to him on 13 October 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lived in Eskişehir.
6.  On 13 October 2000 the Turkish State Railways brought compensation proceedings against the applicant before the Eskişehir Civil Court of First Instance for the unlawful occupation of its property. Within the same proceedings the administration also requested that unlawful occupation of the building on the property to be stopped as well as the demolition of it.
7.  On 21 June 2005 the court partially granted the administration's request and ordered the applicant to pay the plaintiff the principal amount of TRL 1,374,000,000[1] and plus TRL 787,205,000[2] as interest. It also decided that the building on the property be demolished.
8.  On 22 February 2006 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 21 June 2005.
9.  On 5 October 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.
6.  The first applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Derbent, Republic of Dagestan. The second applicant was born in1977 and lives in Severodvinsk, Arkhangelsk Region.
Application of Mr Gadzhikhanov, no. 10511/08
7.  By a judgment of 20 December 1999 the Derbent Town Court of the Republic of Dagestan granted in part the applicant’s claim against the town administration, recognized that the State had unlawfully confiscated the house owned by his father and awarded him compensation in the amount of 8,349 Russian roubles (RUB).
8.  On 2 February 2000 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan upheld that judgment on appeal, and on the same day the trial court forwarded the applicant a writ of execution. The trial court specified in the writ of execution that the debtor was the Commission for Restoration of the Rights of the Rehabilitated Victims of Political Repressions at the town administration.
9.  The applicant did not take any further steps to recover the judicial award. As a result, the judgment of 20 December 1999 remains unenforced.
Application of Mr Saukov, no. 5866/09
10.  By a judgment of 19 July 2005 the Arkhangelsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of various crimes and sentenced him to imprisonment. That judgment was quashed by way of supervisory review on 11 April 2007 by the Presidium of the Arkhangelsk Regional Court (“the Presidium”). Having found that the lower courts had incorrectly assessed evidence in the case, the Presidium decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
11.  The applicant sued the State for damages. By a judgment of 20 March 2008 the Severodvinsk Town Court of the Arkhangelsk Region awarded the applicant compensation for unlawful detention in the amount of RUB 1,000. On 19 June 2008 the trial court issued a writ of execution and sent it to the applicant. The above judgment was upheld on appeal by the Arkhangelsk Regional Court on 2 October 2008. By a letter of 23 December 2008 the Legal Department of the Ministry of Finance informed the applicant of the domestic procedure to follow in order to recover the judicial award in his favour.
12.  Despite that information the applicant did not take any further steps to recover the judicial award. As a result, the judgment of 20 March 2008 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Poltava.
5.  In August 1991 the applicant with her minor son moved to Poltava from their town found to be contaminated as a result of the Chornobyl nuclear disaster. They were housed in a State hostel.
6.  In June 1992 the applicant was placed on a waiting list for obtaining free housing as a victim of the Chornobyl disaster.
7.  In July 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings at the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Poltava (“the Zhovtnevyy Court”) against the local authorities seeking allocation of a free flat.
8.  On 28 February 2001 the Zhovtnevyy Court ruled that the applicant should be provided with free housing under the conditions prescribed by law and according to her place in the waiting list.
9.  On 29 March 2001 the Poltava Regional Court (since June 2001 – the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal, hereinafter – “the Poltava Regional Court”) upheld this judgment.
10.  On 23 May 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the above ruling for some procedural shortcomings and remitted the case for fresh examination to the appellate court.
11.  On 27 June 2002 the Poltava Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal again.
12.  Between July 2002 and April 2003 the courts at two levels considered the admissibility of the appeal in cassation lodged by the applicant. In April 2003 she submitted a rectified appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court.
13.  On 11 December 2003 the Supreme Court started the proceedings.
14.  On 12 May 2005 it rejected the applicant’s appeal in cassation as unsubstantiated.
15.  On 26 February 2002 the applicant instituted administrative proceedings in the Zhovtnevyy Court against the Poltava City Council seeking free housing as a matter of priority.
16.  From 8 July 2004 to 29 June 2005 these proceedings were stayed at the applicant’s request, pending the outcome of the first set of the proceedings.
17.  On 8 February 2006 the Zhovtnevyy Court rejected the claim as being without basis. The applicant appealed.
18.  On 15 May 2006 the Poltava Regional Court allowed her appeal in part. It quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination to the first-instance court, having held however that it fell to be examined under the civil rather than the administrative procedure.
19.  On 28 November 2007 the Higher Administrative Court quashed the aforementioned ruling and remitted the case to the appellate court with a conclusion that it was civil and not administrative.
20.  On 5 August 2009 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Kharkiv Regional Court”), to which the case was referred on an unspecified date, found against the applicant.
21.  On 2 February 2011 the Higher Administrative Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions.
5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Kars.
6.  On 13 December 2002, after having completed his military service, the applicant was placed under the guardianship of his father, S.A., by a decision of the Sarıkamış Magistrates’ Court as he was mentally ill and needed constant supervision.
7.  The applicant submitted several requests to the gendarmerie command claiming compensation for his illness which, according to him, began during his military service as a result of the treatment there. His requests were rejected on the basis of a medical report from the Gülhane Military Medical Academy, which indicated that such a condition could not have been caused merely by military service and that many other factors could have been involved in its development.
8.  Subsequently, under the guardianship of S.A., the applicant initiated compensation proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, claiming that his illness had been caused by the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected in the army. He argued that his enrolment for military service after having passed several medical tests was proof that he had been healthy before. The applicant requested a total of 200,000 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 100,000 euros (EUR) at the time) in respect of both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, submitting the medical records from several hospitals in support of his claims. He also requested legal aid for the court fees, presenting a certificate from the office of the headman (muhtar) attesting to his father’s poverty. The certificate stated that neither S.A. nor anyone else from his household was employed. It also indicated that he was ill, had no social security and depended on support from his neighbours.
9.  By two decisions of 19 July and 1 November 2006 respectively, the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s legal aid request, stating that pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure, a legal aid request must be supported by proof that the case is well-founded and that the plaintiff does not have the means to pay the required court fees. It concluded that the requirements had not been met in the applicant’s case.
10.  On 6 November 2006 the court informed the applicant that he was to pay a total of TRY 2,719 (approximately EUR 1,400 at the time) in court fees within thirty days for the proceedings to be continued.
11.  On 10 January 2007 the Supreme Military Administrative Court decided to discontinue the compensation proceedings because the applicant had not paid the necessary court fees.
6.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Sombor, Serbia.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
8.  On 24 February 2005 the applicant bought a store together with a plot of land from the P Company (plot A).
9.  As the owner of the above real estate, as well as of plots B and C, the P Company was burdened with a landed servitude (lični realni teret) in favour of third persons, requiring their life-long maintenance (doživotno izdržavanje).
10.  On the basis of the above contract, however, the servitude in question, being tied, inter alia, to plot A, was partly transferred to the applicant as its new owner.
11.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant and the P Company concluded a court-certified amendment to the contract of 24 February 2005. The P Company thereby accepted to reimburse the applicant for any payments made in connection with the said servitude. This entitlement was itself constituted as a separate landed servitude (easement, stvarni realni teret) tied to plots B and C and established in favour of the applicant as the current owner of plot A, as well as any future owners thereof.
12.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant filed a request with the Municipal Cadastre Office (Služba za katastar nepokretnosti) in Sombor, seeking registration of his easement.
13.  On 11 April 2005 the Municipal Cadastre Office rejected the applicant’s request, stating that the registration sought could not be granted in view of the relevant domestic law.
14.  On 18 July 2005 the applicant appealed against this decision.
15.  On 30 January 2006 the applicant supplemented his appeal with an expert opinion provided by a well-known domestic legal expert, according to whom the applicant’s entitlement of 30 March 2005 was an easement and, as such, had had to be registered by the Municipal Cadastre Office. The expert, retained by the applicant, further noted that the rights of the third persons in question remained unaffected, thus implying that their consent was not needed.
16.  On 29 May 2006 the legal branch of the Department of Geodesy (Republički geodetski zavod - sector za pravne poslove) confirmed the impugned decision of the Municipal Cadastre Office. It stated that the applicant had not offered any proof that the third persons in question had agreed to the arrangement reached on 24 February 2005 and 30 March 2005. It also noted that no judicial review by means of an administrative dispute was possible.
17.  Both the Municipal Cadastre Office and the Department of Geodesy are administrative authorities and, as such, part of the respondent State’s executive branch of government.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Ussuriysk, Primorye Region.
5.  The applicant served in the military.
6.  On 20 March 2001 the authorities opened criminal proceedings on account of a single incident of theft of the rare-earth metal palladium from certain military equipment.
7.  A week later by a decision of the investigator in accordance with the procedural law at the time, the applicant was remanded on suspicion of participation in the above crime.
8.  The applicant was served with a bill of indictment for the first time on 5 April 2001, and on the following day he was released from detention with an undertaking not to leave the town. He was subsequently issued with several amended bills of indictment.
9.  The Government submitted that the applicant and his counsel had studied the material of the case between 7 March and 25 September 2002. According to the applicant, such a long period was granted to him because the prosecutor in the case was out of town and the proceedings could not advance in his absence.
10.  The criminal case against the applicant and his co-accused arrived at the Military Court of the Spassk-Dalniy Garrison on 8 October 2002.
11.  Between 1 May and 13 June 2003 the applicant had been out of town.
12.  By a decision of the trial court of 9 September 2003 the applicant was again remanded. However, on an unspecified date he appears to have been released on bail.
13.  On 4 June 2004 the trial court considered the case against the applicant and his co-defendant. By a judgment of the same date it convicted the applicant of aggravated theft and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment, with a subsequent one-year bar on holding managerial office and forfeiture of his military rank and the State awards.
14.  On 18 August 2004 the Military Court of the Far-East Circuit changed the legal qualification of the criminal act and sentenced the applicant to one year and six months’ imprisonment, a fine of 3,000 Russian roubles, and forfeiture of his military rank and the State awards.